Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Between Pretence and Practice: The Dutch Response to Recommendations of International Human Rights Bodies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 46))

Abstract

How do countries respond to international criticism and recommendations of international human rights bodies? Do they take it seriously and act upon it or do they dismiss it and then hide it among other documents? This chapter reflects upon these questions as far as The Netherlands is concerned. It reveals a gap between rhetoric and reality in The Netherlands. While The Netherlands champions itself as a leading human rights country that takes international human rights criticism seriously, the preliminary reaction of government officials or Member of Parliaments (MPs) to international criticism is often defensive. This gap between pretence and practice can, however, be bridged and change can be realized when (international) recommendations are taken up and lobbied on by domestic actors. This chapter illustrates this possibility on the basis of some topical and sometimes highly divisive human rights issues in The Netherlands, including ethnic profiling, the bed, bad en brood [bed, bath and bread] discussion about assistance for rejected asylum seekers and human rights education.

Assistant Professor of European Law at Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The author would like to thank Eva Rieter, René Rouwette and Esther Weele for their valuable suggestions as well as comments on previous versions of this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ‘Europa beticht Nederland van discriminatie’, 15 October 2013, http://www.powned.tv/uitzendinggemist/2013/10/pownews_472.html. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  2. 2.

    Krommendijk 2014, at 165.

  3. 3.

    For a list of interviewees, see Krommendijk 2014, at 405–416.

  4. 4.

    These six UN human rights treaties are the following: 1966 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 UNTS 195 (ICERD); 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR); 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR); 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1249 UNTS 13 (CEDAW); 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT); and 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1577 UNTS 3 (CRC).

  5. 5.

    State parties are obliged to submit periodically, usually every four or five years, a report on the implementation of each UN human rights treaty to a committee of independent experts. This report, together with information submitted by NGOs or human rights institutes, is discussed during a ‘constructive dialogue’ between the treaty body and the representatives of the state party.

  6. 6.

    Steiner 2000, at 52, and O’Flaherty 2006.

  7. 7.

    Baehr et al. 2002, Reiding 2007, at 12–15; Oomen 2011, at 2 and 9, and Larson et al. 2014, at 101.

  8. 8.

    ‘Respect en recht voor ieder mens’, Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2012/13, 32735, nr. 78, at 9–10.

  9. 9.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2007/08, 31263, nr. 10, at 1.

  10. 10.

    Krommendijk 2014, at 263–264.

  11. 11.

    E.g., the government response to the COs of CESCR of 2010 in Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 26150, nr. 100, 2010. The fact that the government simply points to already existing policy or legislative measures also stems from the unspecific way in which the COs are formulated. Many COs simply recommend the government to ‘increase its efforts’ or ‘strengthen certain measures’. E.g., UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations, UN Doc. CERD/C/64/CO/7 (2004), 10 May 2004, paras 11 and 13.

  12. 12.

    Elisabeth de Blok et al. v. The Netherlands, CEDAW Committee, No. 36/2012, 19 March 2014. Attachment to Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 30420, nr. 208, 2014.

  13. 13.

    This was also done in response to the ECSR’s BBB-decision (see Sect. 15.3.4). Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, nr. 2134, at 2.

  14. 14.

    Brogan and others v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, Nos. 11209/84, 11234/84, 11266/84 and 11386/85, 29 November 1988. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2001/02, 28000 VI, nr. 54, at 7. Krommendijk 2014, at 132.

  15. 15.

    Cohen 1996, at 527.

  16. 16.

    UN Doc. CEDAW/C/SR.917 (2010), at para 34

  17. 17.

    Cohen 1996, at 524.

  18. 18.

    Krommendijk 2014, at 90–97.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., at 159 and 197; and Reiding 2007, at 146.

  20. 20.

    Larson et al. 2014, at 97.

  21. 21.

    Krommendijk 2014, at 52. Quote is taken from a website, which does not exist anymore. www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/mensenrechten/mensenrechtenbeleid.

  22. 22.

    Larson et al. 2014, at 101 (citing Blokker et al. 2008, at 10).

  23. 23.

    Oomen 2011, at 7 and 15–17.

  24. 24.

    Larson et al. 2014, at 107.

  25. 25.

    Oomen referred in this context to ‘human rights exportism’. Oomen 2011, at 3. See also Oomen 2013, at 45.

  26. 26.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 33826, nr. 2, at 7.

  27. 27.

    Krommendijk 2014, at 85–90. Sjoerdsma (D66) and Van Tongeren (GL) in Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk, 2013/14, 33826, nr. 2, at 7.

  28. 28.

    Larson et al. 2014, at 110.

  29. 29.

    Reading out some COs, one government official reacted by saying ‘what do they (the CEDAW Committee) know about it’ and ‘why should they meddle in’ and ‘not all countries have to be like Sweden’. Krommendijk 2014, at 179, Oomen 2013, at 308.

  30. 30.

    M. Zonneveld, Het interview, Wordt Vervolgd, 2011, at 16 (translation by author).

  31. 31.

    For an overview of the 24 effective COs, see Krommendijk 2014, at 264.

  32. 32.

    For a discussion of these measures and support, see Krommendijk 2014, at 234–244.

  33. 33.

    Krommendijk 2014, at 184–185.

  34. 34.

    Risse et al. 1999, and Simmons 2009.

  35. 35.

    Similar problems exist in relation to the ratification of the Optional Protocols under the CRC and CRPD. 2011 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure, A/RES/66/138; 2006 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Doc.A/61/611.

  36. 36.

    Reiding 2007, at 414–416.

  37. 37.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33826, nr. 9; Eerste Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 34000-VI nr. AF.

  38. 38.

    Dibbets et al. 2014.

  39. 39.

    E.g. Taverne in Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33826, nr. 12, at 4.

  40. 40.

    Interviews as discussed in Krommendijk 2014, at 155–156.

  41. 41.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2007/08, nr. 2015; and Reiding 2012, at 137.

  42. 42.

    Reiding 2012, at 132–133, and Reiding 2007, at 200. The Central Appeals Tribunal applied Article 26 ICCPR in relation to legislation providing for social security (and thus the rights contained in ICESCR) and concluded in several cases that women were wrongfully denied social security benefits. See, e.g., Central Appeals Tribunal, ECLI:NL:CRVB:1987:AK7528, 14 May 1987. The change of the Tribunal’s stance on the direct effect of Article 26 ICCPR was the result of two earlier Views of the HRC. In these Views, the HRC determined that Article 26 ICCPR was violated, because a married woman had to prove that she was a breadwinner in order to receive unemployment benefits, while married men did not have such an obligation. Broeks v. The Netherlands, HRC, No. 001/1984, 9 April 1987; F. H. Zwaan-de Vries v. The Netherlands, HRC, No. 182/1984, 9 April 1987.

  43. 43.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2010/11, 32735, nr. 26, at 42. Eerste Kamer, Kamerstuk 2007/08, nr. 33, at 1392.

  44. 44.

    J.M. de Jong et al., Economische gevolgen van ratificatie van het VN Verdrag Handicap, 16 May 2013, www.mensenrechten.nl/sites/default/files/Eindrapportage%20economische%20gevolgen%20VN%20verdrag%20Handicap%5B2%5D.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2015; J.E. Goldschmidt en M.E.C. Gispen, Ratificatie… en dan?, January 2012, www.mensenrechten.nl/sites/default/files/SIM%20ratificatie_en_dan.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  45. 45.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 33992 (R2034), nr. 3, at 4.

  46. 46.

    The Explanatory Memorandum contains, in the eyes of the Council of State, for the large part an enumeration of existing measures that already comply with the CRPD according to the government. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 33992 (R2034), nr. 4, at 2.

  47. 47.

    It held that it was not a matter of ‘pressing a button’ at the central level. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33990 and 33992 (R2034), nr. 9, at 1.

  48. 48.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2004/05, nr. 1138; Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2007/08, 31263, nr. 15.

  49. 49.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2004/05, nr. 1138. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2007/08, nr. 78, pp. 5519–5522, at 5221.

  50. 50.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, nr. 466.

  51. 51.

    V.L. Derckx, Implementatie van het OPCAT: preventie van onmenselijke behandeling in zorginstellingen, 2013, www.rug.nl/rechten/congressen/archief/2013/osi-project/rapport-implementatie-opcat.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  52. 52.

    See also Committee Against Torture, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of The Netherlands, UN Doc. CAT/C/NLD/CO/5-6, 20 June 2013, para 28.

  53. 53.

    The press release mentioned that ‘[m]ore work needs to be done to make this body fully independent’. Netherlands detention monitoring body needs more political support – UN experts, UNHCRC, 3 August 2015, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16284&LangID=E#sthash.HViNxOKT.dpuf. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  54. 54.

    Kritiek VN op Nederlands toezicht detentie, nu.nl, 3 August 2015, www.nu.nl/binnenland/4099975/kritiek-vn-nederlands-toezicht-detentie.html. Accessed 20 September 2015. In response to questions of Rebel (PvdA)about this news article, State Secretary of Justice Dijkhoff noted that he did not want to anticipate the COs which will only be formally published in November. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, nr. 3202.

  55. 55.

    See also ECRI, Fourth report on The Netherlands, CRI(2013)39, 15 October 2013; Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of The Netherlands, UN Doc. CRC/C/NDL/CO/4, 8 June 2015; Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Concluding observations on the report submitted by The Netherlands, UN Doc. CED/C/NLD/CO/1, 10 April 2014; and Report to the Government of The Netherlands on the visit to The Netherlands carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 16 to 18 October 2013, CPT/Inf (2015) 14, 5 February 2015.

  56. 56.

    Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Report – following his visit to The Netherlands from 20 to 22 May 2014, CommDH(2014)18, 14 October 2014.

  57. 57.

    Attachment to Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33826, nr. 6, at 9.

  58. 58.

    The government’s reaction to the fourth report of ECRI in 2013 likewise contained an enumeration of steps taken in the years prior to ECRI’s report. Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 30950, nr. 62.

  59. 59.

    Attachment to Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33826, nr. 6, at 1.

  60. 60.

    For a similar earlier reaction, see Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2010/11, 26150, nr. 100, at 14.

  61. 61.

    Attachment to Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33826, nr. 6, at 9–10. For an earlier rejection, see Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2010/11, 28741 nr. 17, at 5–6; and Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2007/08, 24587, nr. 287, at 7.

  62. 62.

    Attachment to Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33826, nr. 6, at 6.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., at 13.

  64. 64.

    Conference of European Churches (CEC) v. The Netherlands, ECSR, No. 90/2013, 1 July 2014.

  65. 65.

    S. van der Laan, Teeven niet blij met opmerking Raad van Europa over illegalen, Elsevier, 31 October 2013, www.elsevier.nl/Politiek/nieuws/2013/10/Teeven-niet-blij-met-opmerking-Raad-van-Europa-over-illegalen-1401471W/. Accessed 20 September 2015. The Dutch government also argued that the decision is contra legem, since the states parties explicitly laid down a limited personal scope of the Charter in para 1 of the Appendix. See Committee of Ministers, Resolution CM/ResChS (2015) 5, 15 April 2015, Appendix.

  66. 66.

    Eerste Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, nr. 16, at 35.

  67. 67.

    Committee of Ministers, Resolution CM/ResChS (2015) 5, 15 April 2015.

  68. 68.

    Attachment to Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, 33826, nr. 10, at 5.

  69. 69.

    The Central Appeals Tribunal held that the decision of the ECSR, despite not being legally binding, is an ‘authoritative interpretation’. ECLI:NL:CRVB:2014:4178, para 5.7 See also ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:16447, para 16.

  70. 70.

    This also happened in relation to an earlier decision of the ECSR which was received in a similar dismissive way by the government. In the DCI case, the ECSR determined a violation of the right to shelter in Article 31(2) ESC, because no adequate shelter was provided to children unlawfully present. The District Court Utrecht, for example, characterized this decision as ‘an authoritative decision’ which needs to be taken into consideration and can only be deviated from with an express motivation. Defence for Children International (DCI) v. The Netherlands, ECSR, No. 47/2008, 29 October 2009. See, e.g., Eerste Kamer, Kamerstuk 2009/10, nr. 26, at 1128–1129; Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2009/10, nr. 2035.ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2010:BM0846, paras 2.4 and 2.13–2.15.

  71. 71.

    For a good overview, see Amnesty International, Proactief politieoptreden vormt risico voor mensenrechten. Etnisch profileren onderkennen en aanpakken, October 2013, www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/rapport_etnisch_profileren_ainl_28_okt_2013.pdf, at 22–24. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  72. 72.

    ECRI, Third report on The Netherlands, CRI(2008), 29 June 2007, para 26.

  73. 73.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group Netherlands, Addendum, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/15/ Add.1/Rev.1, 12 October 2012, at 8.

  74. 74.

    Amnesty International, Stop and search powers pose a risk to human rights. Acknowledging and tackling ethnic profiling in The Netherlands, 2013, https://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/amnesty_stopandsearchpowersposearisktohumanrights.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2015. A report of June 2014 noted the rather abrupt change in terms of societal and academic attention. van der Leun et al., Etnisch profileren in Den Haag? Een verkennend onderzoek naar beslissingen en opvattingen op straat, 2014, at 4, www.politieacademie.nl/kennisenonderzoek/kennis/mediatheek/PDF/89640.PDF. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  75. 75.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 30950, nr. 62, at 23.

  76. 76.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 29628, nr. 423. See also Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 29628, nr. 463, at 2.

  77. 77.

    Van der Leun et al., Etnisch profileren in Den Haag? Een verkennend onderzoek naar beslissingen en opvattingen op straat, 2014, www.politieacademie.nl/kennisenonderzoek/kennis/mediatheek/PDF/89640.PDF. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  78. 78.

    E.g. Çankaya 2011; Amnesty International, Stop and search powers pose a risk to human rights. Acknowledging and tackling ethnic profiling in The Netherlands, 2013, https://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/amnesty_stopandsearchpowersposearisktohumanrights.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2015; Mutsaers 2013.

  79. 79.

    For parliamentary attention, see Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2014/15, nr. 1190; and Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, nr. 548, at 26–27. For additional measures, see Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 29628, nr. 463.

  80. 80.

    Toespraak van minister Asscher bij de Martin Luther King lezing, 9 April 2015, www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/toespraken/2015/04/09/martin-luther-king-speech-minister-asscher.html. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  81. 81.

    J. Visser, Onderzoek naar nekklem na dood Henriquez, Volkskrant, 8 July 2015, www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/van-aartsen-pleit-voor-meer-diversiteit-bij-politie~a4097216/. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  82. 82.

    Committee on the Rights of the Child, Third periodic report of The Netherlands, UN Doc. CRC/C/SR.1377, 23 January 2009, para 81.

  83. 83.

    See the attachment to Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2003/04, 29284 and 26150, nr. 3, at 19.

  84. 84.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2007/08, nr. 36, at 2893.

  85. 85.

    Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2008/09, 31700, nr. 72, at 2–3.

  86. 86.

    Krommendijk 2014, at 242–243.

  87. 87.

    E.g., plea for human rights education on Nederlands Juristen Comité voor Mensenrechten, Pleidooi voor mensenrechteneducatie op Nederlandse scholen, 23 June 2015, www.njcm.nl/site/newsposts/show/354. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  88. 88.

    The motion was rejected by VVD, CDA (centre-right Christian democratic party), D66, PVV (Dutch right-wing party) and SGP.

  89. 89.

    See also Tweede Kamer, Kamerstuk 2013/14, 33826, nr. 8, at 3.

  90. 90.

    Oomen 2013, at 44. In addition, the national human rights action plan of 2013 already mentioned that the Ministry of Education ‘is considering the proposal that human rights, including children’s rights, be mentioned explicitly in the attainment targets defined for primary and secondary education’. Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, National action plan on human rights. The protection and promotion of human rights within the Netherlands, 2014, https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2014/03/19/national-action-plan-on-human-rights. Accessed 20 September 2015.

  91. 91.

    Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs, We are at a historic low point, let’s end rituals. Speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, Bert Koenders, to the UN Human Rights Council, 2 March 2015,

    http://geneve.nlvertegenwoordiging.org/organization/recente-speeches/2-maart-2015---speech-koenders-mensenrechtenraad.html. Accessed 20 September 2015.

References

  • Baehr P, Castermans-Holleman M, Grünfeld F (2002) Human rights in the foreign policy of The Netherlands. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Blokker J, Blokker J Jr, Blokker B (2008) Nederland in twaalf moorden: niets zo veranderlijk als onze identiteit. Contact, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Çankaya S (2011) Buiten veiliger dan binnen. In- en uitsluiting van etnische minderheden binnen de politie. Eburon, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S (1996) Government responses to human rights reports: claims, denials, and counterclaims. Human Rights Q 18:517–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibbets A, Buyse A, Timmer A (2014) Onderzoeksrapport: De juridische gevolgen van ratificatie door Nederland van het Facultatief Protocol bij het Internationaal Verdrag inzake Economische, Sociale en Culturele Rechten. http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/308640. Accessed 20 Sept 2015

  • Krommendijk J (2014) The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in The Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland. Paper pushing or policy prompting. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson E, van Rossum W, Schmidt P (2014) The Dutch confession: compliance, leadership and national identity in the human rights order. Utrecht Law Rev 10:96–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutsaers P (2013) Ethnic profiling from an anthropological perspective. Policing internal borders in The Netherlands. Tilburg Paper in Culture Studies 88

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Flaherty M (2006) The concluding observations of United Nations human rights treaty bodies. Human Rights Law Rev 6:27–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oomen B (2011) Small places: the homecoming of human rights in The Netherlands. Inaugural lecture on 2 Dec 2011, Middelburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Oomen B (2013) The rights for others: the contested homecoming of human rights in The Netherlands. Neth Q Human Rights 31:41–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiding H (2007) The Netherlands and the development of international human rights instruments. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiding H (2012) The Netherlands gradually changing views on international economic and social rights protection. Human Rights Q 34:113–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse T, Ropp SC, Sikkink K (eds) (1999) The power of human rights: international norms and domestic change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons B (2009) Mobilizing for human rights. International law in domestic politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner HJ (2000) Individual claims in a world of massive violations: what role for the Human Rights Committee. In: Alston P, Crawford J (eds) The future of UN human rights treaty monitoring. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 15–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Jasper Krommendijk

Authors
  1. Jasper Krommendijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasper Krommendijk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Law, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Maarten den Heijer

  2. Chair of International Criminal Law, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Harmen van der Wilt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krommendijk, J. (2016). Between Pretence and Practice: The Dutch Response to Recommendations of International Human Rights Bodies. In: Heijer, M., van der Wilt, H. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 46. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-113-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-114-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation